East Lancashire council taxes to go up two per cent

COUNTY council tax bills across five boroughs in East Lancashire look set to rise by just under two per cent for this financial year.

The Labour administration at County Hall has proposed a 1.99 per cent increase for the major portion of council tax bills in Burnley, Hyndburn, Ribble Valley, Pendle and Rossendale.

This would add just under £7.25million to the authority’s coffers for the forthcoming 12 months, the county’s cabinet was told.

And it would mean a charge of £1,107 for county services, for the average household in Lancashire. County council leader Coun Jennifer Mein said it equated to around 41.5p extra per week for bill payers.

If the county council had chosen to opt for a council tax freeze then it would have received around £4.2million from Whitehall, according to finance bosses.

Coun David Borrow, deputy leader and resources cabinet member, said he would also be setting aside £5million from the council’s reserves to meet any funding gap. But he said he was ‘confident’ this would not be required and added: “Officers and cabinet members need to be looking at savings all of the time.”

Coun Geoff Driver, the Conservative opposition group leader, said: “The use of resources to balance the budget is not a good one at the best of times.

Share article

“But it is particularly worrying we are proposing that when will be facing such serious financial pressures.”

Another £159million in savings must still be found across the following three years.

Promoted Stories

Comments (32)

Yet public sector pay rise is capped at 1 %. Albeit a small one it's yet another kick in the **** for the taxpayer.

Yet public sector pay rise is capped at 1 %.
Albeit a small one it's yet another kick in the **** for the taxpayer.You're not mugging me off that easily

Yet public sector pay rise is capped at 1 %. Albeit a small one it's yet another kick in the **** for the taxpayer.

Score: 12

elmo maniac says...10:47am Fri 10 Jan 14

Will this mean they wont be laying off staff who deppend on these jobs?

Will this mean they wont be laying off staff who deppend on these jobs?elmo maniac

Will this mean they wont be laying off staff who deppend on these jobs?

Score: -1

Jack Herer says...11:31am Fri 10 Jan 14

Surprise, surprise - Labour back in charge at County Hall and that naturally means shafting the average Joe on the street for higher taxes. Labour literally knows no different than tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend, and to hell with the hard working tax payer who is already struggling who has to pay more. The fat cats at the top probably need more expenses, and they are no doubt recruiting more diversity officers as we speak. The champagne socialist gravy train rolls on!

Surprise, surprise - Labour back in charge at County Hall and that naturally means shafting the average Joe on the street for higher taxes.
Labour literally knows no different than tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend, and to hell with the hard working tax payer who is already struggling who has to pay more.
The fat cats at the top probably need more expenses, and they are no doubt recruiting more diversity officers as we speak.
The champagne socialist gravy train rolls on!Jack Herer

Surprise, surprise - Labour back in charge at County Hall and that naturally means shafting the average Joe on the street for higher taxes. Labour literally knows no different than tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend, and to hell with the hard working tax payer who is already struggling who has to pay more. The fat cats at the top probably need more expenses, and they are no doubt recruiting more diversity officers as we speak. The champagne socialist gravy train rolls on!

Score: 29

frank says...12:05pm Fri 10 Jan 14

turning the heating down a fraction could save a lot, after all there's enough hot air generated there without having to use fossil fuel.

turning the heating down a fraction could save a lot, after all there's enough hot air generated there without having to use fossil fuel.frank

turning the heating down a fraction could save a lot, after all there's enough hot air generated there without having to use fossil fuel.

Score: 11

HelmshoreMan2010 says...12:17pm Fri 10 Jan 14

It's 41p a week, it's not the end of the world!

It's 41p a week, it's not the end of the world!HelmshoreMan2010

It's 41p a week, it's not the end of the world!

Score: -24

Cllr Ken Moss says...2:08pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Jack Herer wrote…

Surprise, surprise - Labour back in charge at County Hall and that naturally means shafting the average Joe on the street for higher taxes. Labour literally knows no different than tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend, and to hell with the hard working tax payer who is already struggling who has to pay more. The fat cats at the top probably need more expenses, and they are no doubt recruiting more diversity officers as we speak. The champagne socialist gravy train rolls on!

It is only having to be done because tax was lowered just prior to the elections last year by the Conservatuve administration. If the Tories were that wonderful they would have dropped it five years ago. Don't be blinded by election rhetoric. Whoever won the county elections last year would have faced £273m of cuts and landed with £7m odd extra in lost revenue, it doesn't make any financial sense to cut taxs when every funding stream is being cut off. Electioneering is all it is, it does no benefit to either the Council or the public long term. I can't say that I personally have felt the benefit of that 41p a week, I still have to work six days out of seven to make ends meet.

[quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote:
Surprise, surprise - Labour back in charge at County Hall and that naturally means shafting the average Joe on the street for higher taxes.
Labour literally knows no different than tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend, and to hell with the hard working tax payer who is already struggling who has to pay more.
The fat cats at the top probably need more expenses, and they are no doubt recruiting more diversity officers as we speak.
The champagne socialist gravy train rolls on![/p][/quote]It is only having to be done because tax was lowered just prior to the elections last year by the Conservatuve administration. If the Tories were that wonderful they would have dropped it five years ago.
Don't be blinded by election rhetoric. Whoever won the county elections last year would have faced £273m of cuts and landed with £7m odd extra in lost revenue, it doesn't make any financial sense to cut taxs when every funding stream is being cut off. Electioneering is all it is, it does no benefit to either the Council or the public long term.
I can't say that I personally have felt the benefit of that 41p a week, I still have to work six days out of seven to make ends meet.Cllr Ken Moss

Jack Herer wrote…

Surprise, surprise - Labour back in charge at County Hall and that naturally means shafting the average Joe on the street for higher taxes. Labour literally knows no different than tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend, and to hell with the hard working tax payer who is already struggling who has to pay more. The fat cats at the top probably need more expenses, and they are no doubt recruiting more diversity officers as we speak. The champagne socialist gravy train rolls on!

It is only having to be done because tax was lowered just prior to the elections last year by the Conservatuve administration. If the Tories were that wonderful they would have dropped it five years ago. Don't be blinded by election rhetoric. Whoever won the county elections last year would have faced £273m of cuts and landed with £7m odd extra in lost revenue, it doesn't make any financial sense to cut taxs when every funding stream is being cut off. Electioneering is all it is, it does no benefit to either the Council or the public long term. I can't say that I personally have felt the benefit of that 41p a week, I still have to work six days out of seven to make ends meet.

Score: 2

HelmshoreMan2010 says...2:57pm Fri 10 Jan 14

11 dislikes so far, impressive. I am so happy that I can enjoy life and not worry over the little things like 41p, is it really worth getting worked up over guys? Anyway seeing as I am going to get more negative votes I might as well point out that I live on my own so with single occupancy it will only be 31p for me :D

11 dislikes so far, impressive. I am so happy that I can enjoy life and not worry over the little things like 41p, is it really worth getting worked up over guys?
Anyway seeing as I am going to get more negative votes I might as well point out that I live on my own so with single occupancy it will only be 31p for me :DHelmshoreMan2010

11 dislikes so far, impressive. I am so happy that I can enjoy life and not worry over the little things like 41p, is it really worth getting worked up over guys? Anyway seeing as I am going to get more negative votes I might as well point out that I live on my own so with single occupancy it will only be 31p for me :D

Score: -3

salvadore says...3:04pm Fri 10 Jan 14

You're not mugging me off that easily wrote…

Yet public sector pay rise is capped at 1 %. Albeit a small one it's yet another kick in the **** for the taxpayer.

Not had a pay rise in the public sector for 3 yrs, 1% is a paycut considering inflation has constantly been up at around 3-4%. It's typical of the conservatives to divide people public v private workers, rich v poor, unemployed v employed whilst they and there banker friends line their pockets with tax cuts at a higher rate. Geoff driver is a loser and bully, he can't stand been ousted. I'm glad he's out, he is a big headed twit that needs a kick up his pants.

[quote][p][bold]You're not mugging me off that easily[/bold] wrote:
Yet public sector pay rise is capped at 1 %.
Albeit a small one it's yet another kick in the **** for the taxpayer.[/p][/quote]Not had a pay rise in the public sector for 3 yrs, 1% is a paycut considering inflation has constantly been up at around 3-4%. It's typical of the conservatives to divide people public v private workers, rich v poor, unemployed v employed whilst they and there banker friends line their pockets with tax cuts at a higher rate. Geoff driver is a loser and bully, he can't stand been ousted. I'm glad he's out, he is a big headed twit that needs a kick up his pants.salvadore

You're not mugging me off that easily wrote…

Yet public sector pay rise is capped at 1 %. Albeit a small one it's yet another kick in the **** for the taxpayer.

Not had a pay rise in the public sector for 3 yrs, 1% is a paycut considering inflation has constantly been up at around 3-4%. It's typical of the conservatives to divide people public v private workers, rich v poor, unemployed v employed whilst they and there banker friends line their pockets with tax cuts at a higher rate. Geoff driver is a loser and bully, he can't stand been ousted. I'm glad he's out, he is a big headed twit that needs a kick up his pants.

Score: 6

MickAH says...3:07pm Fri 10 Jan 14

And this doesn't include the 2% increase the police and crime commissioner and ex Labour county councillor Clive Grunshaw is asking for. Tax, tax and more tax from these Labour clowns.

And this doesn't include the 2% increase the police and crime commissioner and ex Labour county councillor Clive Grunshaw is asking for. Tax, tax and more tax from these Labour clowns.MickAH

And this doesn't include the 2% increase the police and crime commissioner and ex Labour county councillor Clive Grunshaw is asking for. Tax, tax and more tax from these Labour clowns.

Score: 3

salvadore says...3:15pm Fri 10 Jan 14

MickAH wrote…

And this doesn't include the 2% increase the police and crime commissioner and ex Labour county councillor Clive Grunshaw is asking for. Tax, tax and more tax from these Labour clowns.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about, this includes the police increment. If the Tories didn't reduce the council tax last year by 2% which was a cynical electioneering move. This wouldn't be needed, Geoff driver and co was so desperate to keep power that they rather have essential services suffer and reduce council tax. I said it then the council couldn't afford the cut of 2%. Well now Geoff bully boy driver has been ousted and the folk of lancashire saw through him I'm a happy person. What a knob Geoff

[quote][p][bold]MickAH[/bold] wrote:
And this doesn't include the 2% increase the police and crime commissioner and ex Labour county councillor Clive Grunshaw is asking for. Tax, tax and more tax from these Labour clowns.[/p][/quote]You obviously don't know what you're talking about, this includes the police increment. If the Tories didn't reduce the council tax last year by 2% which was a cynical electioneering move. This wouldn't be needed, Geoff driver and co was so desperate to keep power that they rather have essential services suffer and reduce council tax. I said it then the council couldn't afford the cut of 2%. Well now Geoff bully boy driver has been ousted and the folk of lancashire saw through him I'm a happy person. What a knob Geoffsalvadore

MickAH wrote…

And this doesn't include the 2% increase the police and crime commissioner and ex Labour county councillor Clive Grunshaw is asking for. Tax, tax and more tax from these Labour clowns.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about, this includes the police increment. If the Tories didn't reduce the council tax last year by 2% which was a cynical electioneering move. This wouldn't be needed, Geoff driver and co was so desperate to keep power that they rather have essential services suffer and reduce council tax. I said it then the council couldn't afford the cut of 2%. Well now Geoff bully boy driver has been ousted and the folk of lancashire saw through him I'm a happy person. What a knob Geoff

Score: 3

Jack Herer says...3:41pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Cllr Ken Moss wrote…

Jack Herer wrote…

Surprise, surprise - Labour back in charge at County Hall and that naturally means shafting the average Joe on the street for higher taxes. Labour literally knows no different than tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend, and to hell with the hard working tax payer who is already struggling who has to pay more. The fat cats at the top probably need more expenses, and they are no doubt recruiting more diversity officers as we speak. The champagne socialist gravy train rolls on!

It is only having to be done because tax was lowered just prior to the elections last year by the Conservatuve administration. If the Tories were that wonderful they would have dropped it five years ago. Don't be blinded by election rhetoric. Whoever won the county elections last year would have faced £273m of cuts and landed with £7m odd extra in lost revenue, it doesn't make any financial sense to cut taxs when every funding stream is being cut off. Electioneering is all it is, it does no benefit to either the Council or the public long term. I can't say that I personally have felt the benefit of that 41p a week, I still have to work six days out of seven to make ends meet.

Jeez, is a tax decrease really such an alien concept for you? Does it go against every single thing you believe in as a Labour man? In your mind, are yearly double digit increases in council tax the only form of normality for local government? Council taxes sky rocketed under Labour's long rule of LCC..The level of increases were completely unfair to the hardworking tax payer who had to pay them though. Because let's be honest, where were the double digit increases to the services provided? There was plenty of increases in wages for management - "to compete with the private sector," being the bizarre reason pushed by the unions; little caring if it far surpassed the private sector, or it was detrimental for councils to compete with them - but tangible improvements for things for the man on the street were far harder to discern. But it was in the days of good old Gordon's magic money tree - the one that the bankers had told him about - and so Labour didn't seem to know, or care (difficult to tell which), that it was all completely unsustainable. God forbid therefore, when financial reality bit, council tax was actually lowered by the Conservatives. Let me guess; the "cuts" are to blame for everything though? Is that the only mantra Labour knows? And so the plan is to pay for ever unsustainable spending, paid for by ever higher taxes and debt, which means nothing changes, and nothing improves; unions simply strike against any change, and we continue on the merry path to economic destruction? I'm not blinded by election rhetoric thanks. It's the reason I can see through Labour's shallow "cuts are to blame for everything." Look, I appreciate councillors themselves often have a hard and thankless task, but squeezing the hard working payer ever more just isn't the answer. We need to be serious about how much we spend as a country, and making councils more efficient is an unfortunately necessity, not some super evil plan by Tory local government to somehow hoard money themselves: the kind of fantastical propaganda which I've actually seen the Labour party imply within local election pamphlets. Shamelessly. I'm guessing that the breakdown of 41p a week for the increase was decided as the best way to spin it to the poor suckers who have to pay it. I seem to recall it was how the double digit increases were spun under Labour too. The bottom line that its all about squeezing an already skint average man though, when really it doesn't need to be that way.

[quote][p][bold]Cllr Ken Moss[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote:
Surprise, surprise - Labour back in charge at County Hall and that naturally means shafting the average Joe on the street for higher taxes.
Labour literally knows no different than tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend, and to hell with the hard working tax payer who is already struggling who has to pay more.
The fat cats at the top probably need more expenses, and they are no doubt recruiting more diversity officers as we speak.
The champagne socialist gravy train rolls on![/p][/quote]It is only having to be done because tax was lowered just prior to the elections last year by the Conservatuve administration. If the Tories were that wonderful they would have dropped it five years ago.
Don't be blinded by election rhetoric. Whoever won the county elections last year would have faced £273m of cuts and landed with £7m odd extra in lost revenue, it doesn't make any financial sense to cut taxs when every funding stream is being cut off. Electioneering is all it is, it does no benefit to either the Council or the public long term.
I can't say that I personally have felt the benefit of that 41p a week, I still have to work six days out of seven to make ends meet.[/p][/quote]Jeez, is a tax decrease really such an alien concept for you? Does it go against every single thing you believe in as a Labour man? In your mind, are yearly double digit increases in council tax the only form of normality for local government?
Council taxes sky rocketed under Labour's long rule of LCC..The level of increases were completely unfair to the hardworking tax payer who had to pay them though. Because let's be honest, where were the double digit increases to the services provided? There was plenty of increases in wages for management - "to compete with the private sector," being the bizarre reason pushed by the unions; little caring if it far surpassed the private sector, or it was detrimental for councils to compete with them - but tangible improvements for things for the man on the street were far harder to discern.
But it was in the days of good old Gordon's magic money tree - the one that the bankers had told him about - and so Labour didn't seem to know, or care (difficult to tell which), that it was all completely unsustainable.
God forbid therefore, when financial reality bit, council tax was actually lowered by the Conservatives.
Let me guess; the "cuts" are to blame for everything though? Is that the only mantra Labour knows? And so the plan is to pay for ever unsustainable spending, paid for by ever higher taxes and debt, which means nothing changes, and nothing improves; unions simply strike against any change, and we continue on the merry path to economic destruction?
I'm not blinded by election rhetoric thanks. It's the reason I can see through Labour's shallow "cuts are to blame for everything."
Look, I appreciate councillors themselves often have a hard and thankless task, but squeezing the hard working payer ever more just isn't the answer. We need to be serious about how much we spend as a country, and making councils more efficient is an unfortunately necessity, not some super evil plan by Tory local government to somehow hoard money themselves: the kind of fantastical propaganda which I've actually seen the Labour party imply within local election pamphlets. Shamelessly.
I'm guessing that the breakdown of 41p a week for the increase was decided as the best way to spin it to the poor suckers who have to pay it. I seem to recall it was how the double digit increases were spun under Labour too.
The bottom line that its all about squeezing an already skint average man though, when really it doesn't need to be that way.Jack Herer

Cllr Ken Moss wrote…

Jack Herer wrote…

Surprise, surprise - Labour back in charge at County Hall and that naturally means shafting the average Joe on the street for higher taxes. Labour literally knows no different than tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend, and to hell with the hard working tax payer who is already struggling who has to pay more. The fat cats at the top probably need more expenses, and they are no doubt recruiting more diversity officers as we speak. The champagne socialist gravy train rolls on!

It is only having to be done because tax was lowered just prior to the elections last year by the Conservatuve administration. If the Tories were that wonderful they would have dropped it five years ago. Don't be blinded by election rhetoric. Whoever won the county elections last year would have faced £273m of cuts and landed with £7m odd extra in lost revenue, it doesn't make any financial sense to cut taxs when every funding stream is being cut off. Electioneering is all it is, it does no benefit to either the Council or the public long term. I can't say that I personally have felt the benefit of that 41p a week, I still have to work six days out of seven to make ends meet.

Jeez, is a tax decrease really such an alien concept for you? Does it go against every single thing you believe in as a Labour man? In your mind, are yearly double digit increases in council tax the only form of normality for local government? Council taxes sky rocketed under Labour's long rule of LCC..The level of increases were completely unfair to the hardworking tax payer who had to pay them though. Because let's be honest, where were the double digit increases to the services provided? There was plenty of increases in wages for management - "to compete with the private sector," being the bizarre reason pushed by the unions; little caring if it far surpassed the private sector, or it was detrimental for councils to compete with them - but tangible improvements for things for the man on the street were far harder to discern. But it was in the days of good old Gordon's magic money tree - the one that the bankers had told him about - and so Labour didn't seem to know, or care (difficult to tell which), that it was all completely unsustainable. God forbid therefore, when financial reality bit, council tax was actually lowered by the Conservatives. Let me guess; the "cuts" are to blame for everything though? Is that the only mantra Labour knows? And so the plan is to pay for ever unsustainable spending, paid for by ever higher taxes and debt, which means nothing changes, and nothing improves; unions simply strike against any change, and we continue on the merry path to economic destruction? I'm not blinded by election rhetoric thanks. It's the reason I can see through Labour's shallow "cuts are to blame for everything." Look, I appreciate councillors themselves often have a hard and thankless task, but squeezing the hard working payer ever more just isn't the answer. We need to be serious about how much we spend as a country, and making councils more efficient is an unfortunately necessity, not some super evil plan by Tory local government to somehow hoard money themselves: the kind of fantastical propaganda which I've actually seen the Labour party imply within local election pamphlets. Shamelessly. I'm guessing that the breakdown of 41p a week for the increase was decided as the best way to spin it to the poor suckers who have to pay it. I seem to recall it was how the double digit increases were spun under Labour too. The bottom line that its all about squeezing an already skint average man though, when really it doesn't need to be that way.

Score: 5

Jack Herer says...4:08pm Fri 10 Jan 14

salvadore wrote…

MickAH wrote…

And this doesn't include the 2% increase the police and crime commissioner and ex Labour county councillor Clive Grunshaw is asking for. Tax, tax and more tax from these Labour clowns.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about, this includes the police increment. If the Tories didn't reduce the council tax last year by 2% which was a cynical electioneering move. This wouldn't be needed, Geoff driver and co was so desperate to keep power that they rather have essential services suffer and reduce council tax. I said it then the council couldn't afford the cut of 2%. Well now Geoff bully boy driver has been ousted and the folk of lancashire saw through him I'm a happy person. What a knob Geoff

Geoff Driver was ousted because the public unfortunately fell for Labour's continued unsustainable spending hoodwink. Nobody likes cuts, but we can't live in a world of flagrant inefficiency. Not when that spending simply isn't living in the real world. Wild shot in the dark, but was "Geoff bully boy driver" the name for him in union circles? It's the type of silly evil image unions like to conjure up you see. Geoff Driver looked out for the man in the street rather than the fat cat union rep. That didn't make him a bully boy to most folk in Lancashire.

[quote][p][bold]salvadore[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]MickAH[/bold] wrote:
And this doesn't include the 2% increase the police and crime commissioner and ex Labour county councillor Clive Grunshaw is asking for. Tax, tax and more tax from these Labour clowns.[/p][/quote]You obviously don't know what you're talking about, this includes the police increment. If the Tories didn't reduce the council tax last year by 2% which was a cynical electioneering move. This wouldn't be needed, Geoff driver and co was so desperate to keep power that they rather have essential services suffer and reduce council tax. I said it then the council couldn't afford the cut of 2%. Well now Geoff bully boy driver has been ousted and the folk of lancashire saw through him I'm a happy person. What a knob Geoff[/p][/quote]Geoff Driver was ousted because the public unfortunately fell for Labour's continued unsustainable spending hoodwink.
Nobody likes cuts, but we can't live in a world of flagrant inefficiency. Not when that spending simply isn't living in the real world.
Wild shot in the dark, but was "Geoff bully boy driver" the name for him in union circles? It's the type of silly evil image unions like to conjure up you see.
Geoff Driver looked out for the man in the street rather than the fat cat union rep. That didn't make him a bully boy to most folk in Lancashire.Jack Herer

salvadore wrote…

MickAH wrote…

And this doesn't include the 2% increase the police and crime commissioner and ex Labour county councillor Clive Grunshaw is asking for. Tax, tax and more tax from these Labour clowns.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about, this includes the police increment. If the Tories didn't reduce the council tax last year by 2% which was a cynical electioneering move. This wouldn't be needed, Geoff driver and co was so desperate to keep power that they rather have essential services suffer and reduce council tax. I said it then the council couldn't afford the cut of 2%. Well now Geoff bully boy driver has been ousted and the folk of lancashire saw through him I'm a happy person. What a knob Geoff

Geoff Driver was ousted because the public unfortunately fell for Labour's continued unsustainable spending hoodwink. Nobody likes cuts, but we can't live in a world of flagrant inefficiency. Not when that spending simply isn't living in the real world. Wild shot in the dark, but was "Geoff bully boy driver" the name for him in union circles? It's the type of silly evil image unions like to conjure up you see. Geoff Driver looked out for the man in the street rather than the fat cat union rep. That didn't make him a bully boy to most folk in Lancashire.

Score: 5

MickAH says...4:15pm Fri 10 Jan 14

salvadore wrote…

MickAH wrote…

And this doesn't include the 2% increase the police and crime commissioner and ex Labour county councillor Clive Grunshaw is asking for. Tax, tax and more tax from these Labour clowns.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about, this includes the police increment. If the Tories didn't reduce the council tax last year by 2% which was a cynical electioneering move. This wouldn't be needed, Geoff driver and co was so desperate to keep power that they rather have essential services suffer and reduce council tax. I said it then the council couldn't afford the cut of 2%. Well now Geoff bully boy driver has been ousted and the folk of lancashire saw through him I'm a happy person. What a knob Geoff

I don't know what I'm talking about? Have you actually read the article or studied a council tax bill? The 1.99% rise if for county councill services. Police, fire and parish charges are completely seperate but added to the final bill.

[quote][p][bold]salvadore[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]MickAH[/bold] wrote:
And this doesn't include the 2% increase the police and crime commissioner and ex Labour county councillor Clive Grunshaw is asking for. Tax, tax and more tax from these Labour clowns.[/p][/quote]You obviously don't know what you're talking about, this includes the police increment. If the Tories didn't reduce the council tax last year by 2% which was a cynical electioneering move. This wouldn't be needed, Geoff driver and co was so desperate to keep power that they rather have essential services suffer and reduce council tax. I said it then the council couldn't afford the cut of 2%. Well now Geoff bully boy driver has been ousted and the folk of lancashire saw through him I'm a happy person. What a knob Geoff[/p][/quote]I don't know what I'm talking about? Have you actually read the article or studied a council tax bill? The 1.99% rise if for county councill services. Police, fire and parish charges are completely seperate but added to the final bill.MickAH

salvadore wrote…

MickAH wrote…

And this doesn't include the 2% increase the police and crime commissioner and ex Labour county councillor Clive Grunshaw is asking for. Tax, tax and more tax from these Labour clowns.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about, this includes the police increment. If the Tories didn't reduce the council tax last year by 2% which was a cynical electioneering move. This wouldn't be needed, Geoff driver and co was so desperate to keep power that they rather have essential services suffer and reduce council tax. I said it then the council couldn't afford the cut of 2%. Well now Geoff bully boy driver has been ousted and the folk of lancashire saw through him I'm a happy person. What a knob Geoff

I don't know what I'm talking about? Have you actually read the article or studied a council tax bill? The 1.99% rise if for county councill services. Police, fire and parish charges are completely seperate but added to the final bill.

Score: 4

vicn1956 says...4:28pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Some people thought communist Russia was a utopia and ignored the truths that leaked out.

Some people thought communist Russia was a utopia and ignored the truths that leaked out.vicn1956

Some people thought communist Russia was a utopia and ignored the truths that leaked out.

Score: 2

coates warder says...6:18pm Fri 10 Jan 14

You're not mugging me off that easily wrote…

Yet public sector pay rise is capped at 1 %. Albeit a small one it's yet another kick in the **** for the taxpayer.

at least you get a rise, not had one for 7 years. i cant afford another penny

[quote][p][bold]You're not mugging me off that easily[/bold] wrote:
Yet public sector pay rise is capped at 1 %.
Albeit a small one it's yet another kick in the **** for the taxpayer.[/p][/quote]at least you get a rise, not had one for 7 years. i cant afford another pennycoates warder

You're not mugging me off that easily wrote…

Yet public sector pay rise is capped at 1 %. Albeit a small one it's yet another kick in the **** for the taxpayer.

at least you get a rise, not had one for 7 years. i cant afford another penny

Score: 4

rilistic says...7:21pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Salvadore - I think your comments about Geoff Driver are out of order. My niece has serious disabilities and the Tories reversed the cuts imposed by Labour and really improved the services for my niece and others like her. Yes Geoff Driver was determined to change the way LCC operated and he did but that was for all our benefits and that doesn't make him a 'bully boy'. Labour plan to increase Council Tax by 2% AND cut vital services such as respite care for adults with disabilities, bus services in rural areas and day care for children with disabilities. They have also cut the amount the Tories left to provide toilet facilities for adults with disabilities. I'm not a party political person but I think Geoff Driver had our interests at heart and protected the most vulnerable from the cuts imposed by the Government.

Salvadore - I think your comments about Geoff Driver are out of order. My niece has serious disabilities and the Tories reversed the cuts imposed by Labour and really improved the services for my niece and others like her. Yes Geoff Driver was determined to change the way LCC operated and he did but that was for all our benefits and that doesn't make him a 'bully boy'. Labour plan to increase Council Tax by 2% AND cut vital services such as respite care for adults with disabilities, bus services in rural areas and day care for children with disabilities. They have also cut the amount the Tories left to provide toilet facilities for adults with disabilities. I'm not a party political person but I think Geoff Driver had our interests at heart and protected the most vulnerable from the cuts imposed by the Government.rilistic

Salvadore - I think your comments about Geoff Driver are out of order. My niece has serious disabilities and the Tories reversed the cuts imposed by Labour and really improved the services for my niece and others like her. Yes Geoff Driver was determined to change the way LCC operated and he did but that was for all our benefits and that doesn't make him a 'bully boy'. Labour plan to increase Council Tax by 2% AND cut vital services such as respite care for adults with disabilities, bus services in rural areas and day care for children with disabilities. They have also cut the amount the Tories left to provide toilet facilities for adults with disabilities. I'm not a party political person but I think Geoff Driver had our interests at heart and protected the most vulnerable from the cuts imposed by the Government.

Score: 6

HelmshoreMan2010 says...8:00pm Fri 10 Jan 14

coates warder wrote…

You're not mugging me off that easily wrote…

Yet public sector pay rise is capped at 1 %. Albeit a small one it's yet another kick in the **** for the taxpayer.

at least you get a rise, not had one for 7 years. i cant afford another penny

So broke, yet on the internet?

[quote][p][bold]coates warder[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]You're not mugging me off that easily[/bold] wrote:
Yet public sector pay rise is capped at 1 %.
Albeit a small one it's yet another kick in the **** for the taxpayer.[/p][/quote]at least you get a rise, not had one for 7 years. i cant afford another penny[/p][/quote]So broke, yet on the internet?HelmshoreMan2010

coates warder wrote…

You're not mugging me off that easily wrote…

Yet public sector pay rise is capped at 1 %. Albeit a small one it's yet another kick in the **** for the taxpayer.

at least you get a rise, not had one for 7 years. i cant afford another penny

So broke, yet on the internet?

Score: 0

salvadore says...9:37pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Jack Herer wrote…

salvadore wrote…

MickAH wrote…

And this doesn't include the 2% increase the police and crime commissioner and ex Labour county councillor Clive Grunshaw is asking for. Tax, tax and more tax from these Labour clowns.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about, this includes the police increment. If the Tories didn't reduce the council tax last year by 2% which was a cynical electioneering move. This wouldn't be needed, Geoff driver and co was so desperate to keep power that they rather have essential services suffer and reduce council tax. I said it then the council couldn't afford the cut of 2%. Well now Geoff bully boy driver has been ousted and the folk of lancashire saw through him I'm a happy person. What a knob Geoff

Geoff Driver was ousted because the public unfortunately fell for Labour's continued unsustainable spending hoodwink. Nobody likes cuts, but we can't live in a world of flagrant inefficiency. Not when that spending simply isn't living in the real world. Wild shot in the dark, but was "Geoff bully boy driver" the name for him in union circles? It's the type of silly evil image unions like to conjure up you see. Geoff Driver looked out for the man in the street rather than the fat cat union rep. That didn't make him a bully boy to most folk in Lancashire.

Is that why he the ex chief executive and one connect chief are being investigated. Geoff looks after himself no one else.

[quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]salvadore[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]MickAH[/bold] wrote:
And this doesn't include the 2% increase the police and crime commissioner and ex Labour county councillor Clive Grunshaw is asking for. Tax, tax and more tax from these Labour clowns.[/p][/quote]You obviously don't know what you're talking about, this includes the police increment. If the Tories didn't reduce the council tax last year by 2% which was a cynical electioneering move. This wouldn't be needed, Geoff driver and co was so desperate to keep power that they rather have essential services suffer and reduce council tax. I said it then the council couldn't afford the cut of 2%. Well now Geoff bully boy driver has been ousted and the folk of lancashire saw through him I'm a happy person. What a knob Geoff[/p][/quote]Geoff Driver was ousted because the public unfortunately fell for Labour's continued unsustainable spending hoodwink.
Nobody likes cuts, but we can't live in a world of flagrant inefficiency. Not when that spending simply isn't living in the real world.
Wild shot in the dark, but was "Geoff bully boy driver" the name for him in union circles? It's the type of silly evil image unions like to conjure up you see.
Geoff Driver looked out for the man in the street rather than the fat cat union rep. That didn't make him a bully boy to most folk in Lancashire.[/p][/quote]Is that why he the ex chief executive and one connect chief are being investigated. Geoff looks after himself no one else.salvadore

Jack Herer wrote…

salvadore wrote…

MickAH wrote…

And this doesn't include the 2% increase the police and crime commissioner and ex Labour county councillor Clive Grunshaw is asking for. Tax, tax and more tax from these Labour clowns.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about, this includes the police increment. If the Tories didn't reduce the council tax last year by 2% which was a cynical electioneering move. This wouldn't be needed, Geoff driver and co was so desperate to keep power that they rather have essential services suffer and reduce council tax. I said it then the council couldn't afford the cut of 2%. Well now Geoff bully boy driver has been ousted and the folk of lancashire saw through him I'm a happy person. What a knob Geoff

Geoff Driver was ousted because the public unfortunately fell for Labour's continued unsustainable spending hoodwink. Nobody likes cuts, but we can't live in a world of flagrant inefficiency. Not when that spending simply isn't living in the real world. Wild shot in the dark, but was "Geoff bully boy driver" the name for him in union circles? It's the type of silly evil image unions like to conjure up you see. Geoff Driver looked out for the man in the street rather than the fat cat union rep. That didn't make him a bully boy to most folk in Lancashire.

Is that why he the ex chief executive and one connect chief are being investigated. Geoff looks after himself no one else.

Score: 2

salvadore says...9:46pm Fri 10 Jan 14

rilistic wrote…

Salvadore - I think your comments about Geoff Driver are out of order. My niece has serious disabilities and the Tories reversed the cuts imposed by Labour and really improved the services for my niece and others like her. Yes Geoff Driver was determined to change the way LCC operated and he did but that was for all our benefits and that doesn't make him a 'bully boy'. Labour plan to increase Council Tax by 2% AND cut vital services such as respite care for adults with disabilities, bus services in rural areas and day care for children with disabilities. They have also cut the amount the Tories left to provide toilet facilities for adults with disabilities. I'm not a party political person but I think Geoff Driver had our interests at heart and protected the most vulnerable from the cuts imposed by the Government.

Geoff bully boy insisted on implementing his version of halal food on the Muslim community in lancashire. He has had a cost relationship with BT one connect who got all contracts for IT services, fleet services which is now being investigated and when a councillor disagreed with him he punched him. He was found guilty of this yet didn't apologise. He is a knit wit that looks after himself, BTW both the chief exec of LCC and the main man at one connect resigned when they were investigated. All the cons and Geoff drivers doing what knob.

[quote][p][bold]rilistic[/bold] wrote:
Salvadore - I think your comments about Geoff Driver are out of order. My niece has serious disabilities and the Tories reversed the cuts imposed by Labour and really improved the services for my niece and others like her. Yes Geoff Driver was determined to change the way LCC operated and he did but that was for all our benefits and that doesn't make him a 'bully boy'. Labour plan to increase Council Tax by 2% AND cut vital services such as respite care for adults with disabilities, bus services in rural areas and day care for children with disabilities. They have also cut the amount the Tories left to provide toilet facilities for adults with disabilities. I'm not a party political person but I think Geoff Driver had our interests at heart and protected the most vulnerable from the cuts imposed by the Government.[/p][/quote]Geoff bully boy insisted on implementing his version of halal food on the Muslim community in lancashire. He has had a cost relationship with BT one connect who got all contracts for IT services, fleet services which is now being investigated and when a councillor disagreed with him he punched him. He was found guilty of this yet didn't apologise. He is a knit wit that looks after himself, BTW both the chief exec of LCC and the main man at one connect resigned when they were investigated. All the cons and Geoff drivers doing what knob.salvadore

rilistic wrote…

Salvadore - I think your comments about Geoff Driver are out of order. My niece has serious disabilities and the Tories reversed the cuts imposed by Labour and really improved the services for my niece and others like her. Yes Geoff Driver was determined to change the way LCC operated and he did but that was for all our benefits and that doesn't make him a 'bully boy'. Labour plan to increase Council Tax by 2% AND cut vital services such as respite care for adults with disabilities, bus services in rural areas and day care for children with disabilities. They have also cut the amount the Tories left to provide toilet facilities for adults with disabilities. I'm not a party political person but I think Geoff Driver had our interests at heart and protected the most vulnerable from the cuts imposed by the Government.

Geoff bully boy insisted on implementing his version of halal food on the Muslim community in lancashire. He has had a cost relationship with BT one connect who got all contracts for IT services, fleet services which is now being investigated and when a councillor disagreed with him he punched him. He was found guilty of this yet didn't apologise. He is a knit wit that looks after himself, BTW both the chief exec of LCC and the main man at one connect resigned when they were investigated. All the cons and Geoff drivers doing what knob.

Score: 3

salvadore says...9:54pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Jack Herer wrote…

Cllr Ken Moss wrote…

Jack Herer wrote…

Surprise, surprise - Labour back in charge at County Hall and that naturally means shafting the average Joe on the street for higher taxes. Labour literally knows no different than tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend, and to hell with the hard working tax payer who is already struggling who has to pay more. The fat cats at the top probably need more expenses, and they are no doubt recruiting more diversity officers as we speak. The champagne socialist gravy train rolls on!

It is only having to be done because tax was lowered just prior to the elections last year by the Conservatuve administration. If the Tories were that wonderful they would have dropped it five years ago. Don't be blinded by election rhetoric. Whoever won the county elections last year would have faced £273m of cuts and landed with £7m odd extra in lost revenue, it doesn't make any financial sense to cut taxs when every funding stream is being cut off. Electioneering is all it is, it does no benefit to either the Council or the public long term. I can't say that I personally have felt the benefit of that 41p a week, I still have to work six days out of seven to make ends meet.

Jeez, is a tax decrease really such an alien concept for you? Does it go against every single thing you believe in as a Labour man? In your mind, are yearly double digit increases in council tax the only form of normality for local government? Council taxes sky rocketed under Labour's long rule of LCC..The level of increases were completely unfair to the hardworking tax payer who had to pay them though. Because let's be honest, where were the double digit increases to the services provided? There was plenty of increases in wages for management - "to compete with the private sector," being the bizarre reason pushed by the unions; little caring if it far surpassed the private sector, or it was detrimental for councils to compete with them - but tangible improvements for things for the man on the street were far harder to discern. But it was in the days of good old Gordon's magic money tree - the one that the bankers had told him about - and so Labour didn't seem to know, or care (difficult to tell which), that it was all completely unsustainable. God forbid therefore, when financial reality bit, council tax was actually lowered by the Conservatives. Let me guess; the "cuts" are to blame for everything though? Is that the only mantra Labour knows? And so the plan is to pay for ever unsustainable spending, paid for by ever higher taxes and debt, which means nothing changes, and nothing improves; unions simply strike against any change, and we continue on the merry path to economic destruction? I'm not blinded by election rhetoric thanks. It's the reason I can see through Labour's shallow "cuts are to blame for everything." Look, I appreciate councillors themselves often have a hard and thankless task, but squeezing the hard working payer ever more just isn't the answer. We need to be serious about how much we spend as a country, and making councils more efficient is an unfortunately necessity, not some super evil plan by Tory local government to somehow hoard money themselves: the kind of fantastical propaganda which I've actually seen the Labour party imply within local election pamphlets. Shamelessly. I'm guessing that the breakdown of 41p a week for the increase was decided as the best way to spin it to the poor suckers who have to pay it. I seem to recall it was how the double digit increases were spun under Labour too. The bottom line that its all about squeezing an already skint average man though, when really it doesn't need to be that way.

Another plonker falling for the Tory divide and conquer routine. Why did cons lower the council tax the year the election was held? Yet they were reducing services for people with disabilities etc, if you don't think that was a political stunt you really are living in cuckoo land. Why didn't they do it before if you believe the cons always lower taxes. Have you not seen what the cons have done nationally they are taxing even more now then any other government ever has. If you think the public sector is over paid you try working in it, I hope you don't have to use the hospitals, fire brigade or the police in the future. You seem to think public sector workers don't deserve decent pay. But what do you expect from someone who supports a party that is ideologically against the public sector.

[quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Cllr Ken Moss[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Jack Herer[/bold] wrote:
Surprise, surprise - Labour back in charge at County Hall and that naturally means shafting the average Joe on the street for higher taxes.
Labour literally knows no different than tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend, and to hell with the hard working tax payer who is already struggling who has to pay more.
The fat cats at the top probably need more expenses, and they are no doubt recruiting more diversity officers as we speak.
The champagne socialist gravy train rolls on![/p][/quote]It is only having to be done because tax was lowered just prior to the elections last year by the Conservatuve administration. If the Tories were that wonderful they would have dropped it five years ago.
Don't be blinded by election rhetoric. Whoever won the county elections last year would have faced £273m of cuts and landed with £7m odd extra in lost revenue, it doesn't make any financial sense to cut taxs when every funding stream is being cut off. Electioneering is all it is, it does no benefit to either the Council or the public long term.
I can't say that I personally have felt the benefit of that 41p a week, I still have to work six days out of seven to make ends meet.[/p][/quote]Jeez, is a tax decrease really such an alien concept for you? Does it go against every single thing you believe in as a Labour man? In your mind, are yearly double digit increases in council tax the only form of normality for local government?
Council taxes sky rocketed under Labour's long rule of LCC..The level of increases were completely unfair to the hardworking tax payer who had to pay them though. Because let's be honest, where were the double digit increases to the services provided? There was plenty of increases in wages for management - "to compete with the private sector," being the bizarre reason pushed by the unions; little caring if it far surpassed the private sector, or it was detrimental for councils to compete with them - but tangible improvements for things for the man on the street were far harder to discern.
But it was in the days of good old Gordon's magic money tree - the one that the bankers had told him about - and so Labour didn't seem to know, or care (difficult to tell which), that it was all completely unsustainable.
God forbid therefore, when financial reality bit, council tax was actually lowered by the Conservatives.
Let me guess; the "cuts" are to blame for everything though? Is that the only mantra Labour knows? And so the plan is to pay for ever unsustainable spending, paid for by ever higher taxes and debt, which means nothing changes, and nothing improves; unions simply strike against any change, and we continue on the merry path to economic destruction?
I'm not blinded by election rhetoric thanks. It's the reason I can see through Labour's shallow "cuts are to blame for everything."
Look, I appreciate councillors themselves often have a hard and thankless task, but squeezing the hard working payer ever more just isn't the answer. We need to be serious about how much we spend as a country, and making councils more efficient is an unfortunately necessity, not some super evil plan by Tory local government to somehow hoard money themselves: the kind of fantastical propaganda which I've actually seen the Labour party imply within local election pamphlets. Shamelessly.
I'm guessing that the breakdown of 41p a week for the increase was decided as the best way to spin it to the poor suckers who have to pay it. I seem to recall it was how the double digit increases were spun under Labour too.
The bottom line that its all about squeezing an already skint average man though, when really it doesn't need to be that way.[/p][/quote]Another plonker falling for the Tory divide and conquer routine. Why did cons lower the council tax the year the election was held? Yet they were reducing services for people with disabilities etc, if you don't think that was a political stunt you really are living in cuckoo land. Why didn't they do it before if you believe the cons always lower taxes. Have you not seen what the cons have done nationally they are taxing even more now then any other government ever has.
If you think the public sector is over paid you try working in it, I hope you don't have to use the hospitals, fire brigade or the police in the future. You seem to think public sector workers don't deserve decent pay. But what do you expect from someone who supports a party that is ideologically against the public sector.salvadore

Jack Herer wrote…

Cllr Ken Moss wrote…

Jack Herer wrote…

Surprise, surprise - Labour back in charge at County Hall and that naturally means shafting the average Joe on the street for higher taxes. Labour literally knows no different than tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend, and to hell with the hard working tax payer who is already struggling who has to pay more. The fat cats at the top probably need more expenses, and they are no doubt recruiting more diversity officers as we speak. The champagne socialist gravy train rolls on!

It is only having to be done because tax was lowered just prior to the elections last year by the Conservatuve administration. If the Tories were that wonderful they would have dropped it five years ago. Don't be blinded by election rhetoric. Whoever won the county elections last year would have faced £273m of cuts and landed with £7m odd extra in lost revenue, it doesn't make any financial sense to cut taxs when every funding stream is being cut off. Electioneering is all it is, it does no benefit to either the Council or the public long term. I can't say that I personally have felt the benefit of that 41p a week, I still have to work six days out of seven to make ends meet.

Jeez, is a tax decrease really such an alien concept for you? Does it go against every single thing you believe in as a Labour man? In your mind, are yearly double digit increases in council tax the only form of normality for local government? Council taxes sky rocketed under Labour's long rule of LCC..The level of increases were completely unfair to the hardworking tax payer who had to pay them though. Because let's be honest, where were the double digit increases to the services provided? There was plenty of increases in wages for management - "to compete with the private sector," being the bizarre reason pushed by the unions; little caring if it far surpassed the private sector, or it was detrimental for councils to compete with them - but tangible improvements for things for the man on the street were far harder to discern. But it was in the days of good old Gordon's magic money tree - the one that the bankers had told him about - and so Labour didn't seem to know, or care (difficult to tell which), that it was all completely unsustainable. God forbid therefore, when financial reality bit, council tax was actually lowered by the Conservatives. Let me guess; the "cuts" are to blame for everything though? Is that the only mantra Labour knows? And so the plan is to pay for ever unsustainable spending, paid for by ever higher taxes and debt, which means nothing changes, and nothing improves; unions simply strike against any change, and we continue on the merry path to economic destruction? I'm not blinded by election rhetoric thanks. It's the reason I can see through Labour's shallow "cuts are to blame for everything." Look, I appreciate councillors themselves often have a hard and thankless task, but squeezing the hard working payer ever more just isn't the answer. We need to be serious about how much we spend as a country, and making councils more efficient is an unfortunately necessity, not some super evil plan by Tory local government to somehow hoard money themselves: the kind of fantastical propaganda which I've actually seen the Labour party imply within local election pamphlets. Shamelessly. I'm guessing that the breakdown of 41p a week for the increase was decided as the best way to spin it to the poor suckers who have to pay it. I seem to recall it was how the double digit increases were spun under Labour too. The bottom line that its all about squeezing an already skint average man though, when really it doesn't need to be that way.

Another plonker falling for the Tory divide and conquer routine. Why did cons lower the council tax the year the election was held? Yet they were reducing services for people with disabilities etc, if you don't think that was a political stunt you really are living in cuckoo land. Why didn't they do it before if you believe the cons always lower taxes. Have you not seen what the cons have done nationally they are taxing even more now then any other government ever has. If you think the public sector is over paid you try working in it, I hope you don't have to use the hospitals, fire brigade or the police in the future. You seem to think public sector workers don't deserve decent pay. But what do you expect from someone who supports a party that is ideologically against the public sector.

Score: 0

rilistic says...10:17pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Ah Salvadore now I see where you are coming from and and why you are telling lies about Geoff Driver. You want to kill animals without stunning them first. and Geoff Driver stopped you. Well most people in Lancashire and the RSPCA and the Veterinary Association agree with Geoff Driver that killing animals without stunning them first is unbelievably cruel. This disgraceful practice stems from the 5th century when pre-stunning wasn't available and you should bring your religion into the 21st century.

Ah Salvadore now I see where you are coming from and and why you are telling lies about Geoff Driver. You want to kill animals without stunning them first. and Geoff Driver stopped you. Well most people in Lancashire and the RSPCA and the Veterinary Association agree with Geoff Driver that killing animals without stunning them first is unbelievably cruel. This disgraceful practice stems from the 5th century when pre-stunning wasn't available and you should bring your religion into the 21st century.rilistic

Ah Salvadore now I see where you are coming from and and why you are telling lies about Geoff Driver. You want to kill animals without stunning them first. and Geoff Driver stopped you. Well most people in Lancashire and the RSPCA and the Veterinary Association agree with Geoff Driver that killing animals without stunning them first is unbelievably cruel. This disgraceful practice stems from the 5th century when pre-stunning wasn't available and you should bring your religion into the 21st century.

Score: 1

salvadore says...10:27pm Fri 10 Jan 14

rilistic wrote…

Ah Salvadore now I see where you are coming from and and why you are telling lies about Geoff Driver. You want to kill animals without stunning them first. and Geoff Driver stopped you. Well most people in Lancashire and the RSPCA and the Veterinary Association agree with Geoff Driver that killing animals without stunning them first is unbelievably cruel. This disgraceful practice stems from the 5th century when pre-stunning wasn't available and you should bring your religion into the 21st century.

Typical ignorance from a dim wit, you could only pick on one thing I said didn't bother commenting on Geoff bully punching another councillor or his cosy relationship with oneconnect. As for halal slaughter it's the quickest way to kill an animal, I can show you many studies supporting this view. Stunning an animal with 50000 volts is torture for the animal before it's slaughtered. That in my books is more suffering for the animals. If I put 50000 volts through your brains and then you were killed you'd call it tortured to death. So don't give me your bull about animal cruelty because it doesn't wash. He stopped the Muslim children to have the right to have a proper halal meal. I bet he didn't do it with kosher meals for the Jewish schools I wonder why?

[quote][p][bold]rilistic[/bold] wrote:
Ah Salvadore now I see where you are coming from and and why you are telling lies about Geoff Driver. You want to kill animals without stunning them first. and Geoff Driver stopped you. Well most people in Lancashire and the RSPCA and the Veterinary Association agree with Geoff Driver that killing animals without stunning them first is unbelievably cruel. This disgraceful practice stems from the 5th century when pre-stunning wasn't available and you should bring your religion into the 21st century.[/p][/quote]Typical ignorance from a dim wit, you could only pick on one thing I said didn't bother commenting on Geoff bully punching another councillor or his cosy relationship with oneconnect.
As for halal slaughter it's the quickest way to kill an animal, I can show you many studies supporting this view. Stunning an animal with 50000 volts is torture for the animal before it's slaughtered. That in my books is more suffering for the animals. If I put 50000 volts through your brains and then you were killed you'd call it tortured to death. So don't give me your bull about animal cruelty because it doesn't wash. He stopped the Muslim children to have the right to have a proper halal meal. I bet he didn't do it with kosher meals for the Jewish schools I wonder why?salvadore

rilistic wrote…

Ah Salvadore now I see where you are coming from and and why you are telling lies about Geoff Driver. You want to kill animals without stunning them first. and Geoff Driver stopped you. Well most people in Lancashire and the RSPCA and the Veterinary Association agree with Geoff Driver that killing animals without stunning them first is unbelievably cruel. This disgraceful practice stems from the 5th century when pre-stunning wasn't available and you should bring your religion into the 21st century.

Typical ignorance from a dim wit, you could only pick on one thing I said didn't bother commenting on Geoff bully punching another councillor or his cosy relationship with oneconnect. As for halal slaughter it's the quickest way to kill an animal, I can show you many studies supporting this view. Stunning an animal with 50000 volts is torture for the animal before it's slaughtered. That in my books is more suffering for the animals. If I put 50000 volts through your brains and then you were killed you'd call it tortured to death. So don't give me your bull about animal cruelty because it doesn't wash. He stopped the Muslim children to have the right to have a proper halal meal. I bet he didn't do it with kosher meals for the Jewish schools I wonder why?

Score: -4

coates warder says...8:59am Sat 11 Jan 14

HelmshoreMan2010 wrote…

coates warder wrote…

You're not mugging me off that easily wrote…

Yet public sector pay rise is capped at 1 %. Albeit a small one it's yet another kick in the **** for the taxpayer.

at least you get a rise, not had one for 7 years. i cant afford another penny

So broke, yet on the internet?

think you will find most people on the dole have i.phones i dont .so i have a washer and a dryer is that bad as well oh i have a telly as well better report me for having these items ,you really are dim arnt you helmshore.

[quote][p][bold]HelmshoreMan2010[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]coates warder[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]You're not mugging me off that easily[/bold] wrote:
Yet public sector pay rise is capped at 1 %.
Albeit a small one it's yet another kick in the **** for the taxpayer.[/p][/quote]at least you get a rise, not had one for 7 years. i cant afford another penny[/p][/quote]So broke, yet on the internet?[/p][/quote]think you will find most people on the dole have i.phones i dont .so i have a washer and a dryer is that bad as well oh i have a telly as well better report me for having these items ,you really are dim arnt you helmshore.coates warder

HelmshoreMan2010 wrote…

coates warder wrote…

You're not mugging me off that easily wrote…

Yet public sector pay rise is capped at 1 %. Albeit a small one it's yet another kick in the **** for the taxpayer.

at least you get a rise, not had one for 7 years. i cant afford another penny

So broke, yet on the internet?

think you will find most people on the dole have i.phones i dont .so i have a washer and a dryer is that bad as well oh i have a telly as well better report me for having these items ,you really are dim arnt you helmshore.

Score: 2

HelmshoreMan2010 says...10:40am Sat 11 Jan 14

coates warder wrote…

HelmshoreMan2010 wrote…

coates warder wrote…

You're not mugging me off that easily wrote…

Yet public sector pay rise is capped at 1 %. Albeit a small one it's yet another kick in the **** for the taxpayer.

at least you get a rise, not had one for 7 years. i cant afford another penny

So broke, yet on the internet?

think you will find most people on the dole have i.phones i dont .so i have a washer and a dryer is that bad as well oh i have a telly as well better report me for having these items ,you really are dim arnt you helmshore.

I work 44 hours a week over 6 days and I don't have a tumble dryer! I'm not saying your not poor but "Can't afford another penny" is total rubbish. Sell me your tumble dryer for £80 and then you can afford this council tax increase for the next 4 years at least :)

[quote][p][bold]coates warder[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]HelmshoreMan2010[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]coates warder[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]You're not mugging me off that easily[/bold] wrote:
Yet public sector pay rise is capped at 1 %.
Albeit a small one it's yet another kick in the **** for the taxpayer.[/p][/quote]at least you get a rise, not had one for 7 years. i cant afford another penny[/p][/quote]So broke, yet on the internet?[/p][/quote]think you will find most people on the dole have i.phones i dont .so i have a washer and a dryer is that bad as well oh i have a telly as well better report me for having these items ,you really are dim arnt you helmshore.[/p][/quote]I work 44 hours a week over 6 days and I don't have a tumble dryer!
I'm not saying your not poor but "Can't afford another penny" is total rubbish. Sell me your tumble dryer for £80 and then you can afford this council tax increase for the next 4 years at least :)HelmshoreMan2010

coates warder wrote…

HelmshoreMan2010 wrote…

coates warder wrote…

You're not mugging me off that easily wrote…

Yet public sector pay rise is capped at 1 %. Albeit a small one it's yet another kick in the **** for the taxpayer.

at least you get a rise, not had one for 7 years. i cant afford another penny

So broke, yet on the internet?

think you will find most people on the dole have i.phones i dont .so i have a washer and a dryer is that bad as well oh i have a telly as well better report me for having these items ,you really are dim arnt you helmshore.

I work 44 hours a week over 6 days and I don't have a tumble dryer! I'm not saying your not poor but "Can't afford another penny" is total rubbish. Sell me your tumble dryer for £80 and then you can afford this council tax increase for the next 4 years at least :)

Score: 2

HelmshoreMan2010 says...10:46am Sat 11 Jan 14

Oh and by the way, the average tumble dryer cycle costs 60p (can vary slightly) as we are trying to save 40p a week to save the pennies you don't have why don't you dry some clothes the good old fashioned way once a week and bingo problem solved!

Oh and by the way, the average tumble dryer cycle costs 60p (can vary slightly) as we are trying to save 40p a week to save the pennies you don't have why don't you dry some clothes the good old fashioned way once a week and bingo problem solved!HelmshoreMan2010

Oh and by the way, the average tumble dryer cycle costs 60p (can vary slightly) as we are trying to save 40p a week to save the pennies you don't have why don't you dry some clothes the good old fashioned way once a week and bingo problem solved!

Score: 2

jenkinsroy says...10:55am Sat 11 Jan 14

WHY ARE YOU PUTTING THE COUNCIL TAX UP WHEN YOU ARE CUTTING OUR SERVICES LIKE THE TOILETS IN COLNE TOWN CENTRE DO YOU THINK YOU WILL GET IT PAID I DO NOT WE HAVE NOT THE ANY MORE MONEY WHAT ABOUT THE MONEY YOU JUST GOT OF THE GOVERNMENT £700.0000 about?? and also why will be paying us the bedroom tax back that you have claimed of us will it be YOU OR THE D.W.P. so before you start putting up the taxes sort out the bedroom tax problem FIRST . ALL YOU IN PENDLE COUNCIL MUST REMEMBER IT IS US THAT VOTE YOU LOT IN WE CAN VOTE YOU OUT JUST AS FAST.

WHY ARE YOU PUTTING THE COUNCIL TAX UP
WHEN YOU ARE CUTTING OUR SERVICES
LIKE THE TOILETS IN COLNE TOWN CENTRE
DO YOU THINK YOU WILL GET IT PAID I DO NOT
WE HAVE NOT THE ANY MORE MONEY
WHAT ABOUT THE MONEY YOU JUST GOT
OF THE GOVERNMENT £700.0000 about??
and also why will be paying us the bedroom tax back
that you have claimed of us will it be YOU OR THE D.W.P.
so before you start putting up the taxes sort out the bedroom tax
problem FIRST .
ALL YOU IN PENDLE COUNCIL MUST REMEMBER IT IS US THAT
VOTE YOU LOT IN WE CAN VOTE YOU OUT JUST AS FAST.jenkinsroy

WHY ARE YOU PUTTING THE COUNCIL TAX UP WHEN YOU ARE CUTTING OUR SERVICES LIKE THE TOILETS IN COLNE TOWN CENTRE DO YOU THINK YOU WILL GET IT PAID I DO NOT WE HAVE NOT THE ANY MORE MONEY WHAT ABOUT THE MONEY YOU JUST GOT OF THE GOVERNMENT £700.0000 about?? and also why will be paying us the bedroom tax back that you have claimed of us will it be YOU OR THE D.W.P. so before you start putting up the taxes sort out the bedroom tax problem FIRST . ALL YOU IN PENDLE COUNCIL MUST REMEMBER IT IS US THAT VOTE YOU LOT IN WE CAN VOTE YOU OUT JUST AS FAST.

Salvadore - the reason I only commented on the halal issue is because it is clearly that which causes you to be so vitriolic and untruthful about Geoff Driver. I have already said that he improved the services significantly for children with disabilities like my niece and he reinstated the cuts to vulnerable people which the previous Labour administration made and prevented further cuts by making LCC more efficient. The new Labour administration is making further cuts to services for people with disabilities because they are beholden to the Unions. Your comments about punching another Councillor are beyond belief. LCC's records show that he was found guilty of swearing at another Councillor who had snatched a piece of paper out of his hand. And do you really think that if he had punched another Councillor he would just have been asked to apologise? He would quite rightly have been prosecuted for assault. Grow up. And on the question of halal, it was not Geoff Driver who prevented Muslim children from having halal food. It was the Lancashire Council of Mosques who are so out of touch with the vast majority of Muslims in this country who do accept pre-stunning of animals before they are slaughtered. Sadly, it says much about the Muslim community in East Lancashire who want to continue with this utterly barbaric practice. You live in the UK now, not the remote villages of Pakistan!

Salvadore - the reason I only commented on the halal issue is because it is clearly that which causes you to be so vitriolic and untruthful about Geoff Driver. I have already said that he improved the services significantly for children with disabilities like my niece and he reinstated the cuts to vulnerable people which the previous Labour administration made and prevented further cuts by making LCC more efficient. The new Labour administration is making further cuts to services for people with disabilities because they are beholden to the Unions. Your comments about punching another Councillor are beyond belief. LCC's records show that he was found guilty of swearing at another Councillor who had snatched a piece of paper out of his hand. And do you really think that if he had punched another Councillor he would just have been asked to apologise? He would quite rightly have been prosecuted for assault. Grow up. And on the question of halal, it was not Geoff Driver who prevented Muslim children from having halal food. It was the Lancashire Council of Mosques who are so out of touch with the vast majority of Muslims in this country who do accept pre-stunning of animals before they are slaughtered. Sadly, it says much about the Muslim community in East Lancashire who want to continue with this utterly barbaric practice. You live in the UK now, not the remote villages of Pakistan!rilistic

Salvadore - the reason I only commented on the halal issue is because it is clearly that which causes you to be so vitriolic and untruthful about Geoff Driver. I have already said that he improved the services significantly for children with disabilities like my niece and he reinstated the cuts to vulnerable people which the previous Labour administration made and prevented further cuts by making LCC more efficient. The new Labour administration is making further cuts to services for people with disabilities because they are beholden to the Unions. Your comments about punching another Councillor are beyond belief. LCC's records show that he was found guilty of swearing at another Councillor who had snatched a piece of paper out of his hand. And do you really think that if he had punched another Councillor he would just have been asked to apologise? He would quite rightly have been prosecuted for assault. Grow up. And on the question of halal, it was not Geoff Driver who prevented Muslim children from having halal food. It was the Lancashire Council of Mosques who are so out of touch with the vast majority of Muslims in this country who do accept pre-stunning of animals before they are slaughtered. Sadly, it says much about the Muslim community in East Lancashire who want to continue with this utterly barbaric practice. You live in the UK now, not the remote villages of Pakistan!

Score: 2

Cllr Ken Moss says...11:53am Mon 13 Jan 14

Jack Herer, I am not slavishly adhering to any party line or laying the blame at any party's door because much of what has happened was way before my time. I am not interested in debating what happened ten years ago and arguing whether things could have been done better, mistakes have been made by everyone for eternity. What I am interested in is the here and now and both County and District Councils are faced with cuts so massive that they can scarcely be imagined. That is the reality and it is up to the elected representatives to deal with that in the best way for everyone. Cutting taxes just before an election makes life even harder, not just for the people juggling the figures but for everyone in the County who now have £7m less in services thanks to a failed election tactic. In Hyndburn we have the same problem, massively reduced money and the same services to supply. If we proposed a tax cut at local level all we do is make our own lives more difficult, it doesn't solve the problem of how we provide those services, it is still there writ large the day after the election no matter who won. That is my major beef with a stupid tax cut during a period when every penny counts.

Jack Herer, I am not slavishly adhering to any party line or laying the blame at any party's door because much of what has happened was way before my time. I am not interested in debating what happened ten years ago and arguing whether things could have been done better, mistakes have been made by everyone for eternity.
What I am interested in is the here and now and both County and District Councils are faced with cuts so massive that they can scarcely be imagined. That is the reality and it is up to the elected representatives to deal with that in the best way for everyone.
Cutting taxes just before an election makes life even harder, not just for the people juggling the figures but for everyone in the County who now have £7m less in services thanks to a failed election tactic.
In Hyndburn we have the same problem, massively reduced money and the same services to supply. If we proposed a tax cut at local level all we do is make our own lives more difficult, it doesn't solve the problem of how we provide those services, it is still there writ large the day after the election no matter who won.
That is my major beef with a stupid tax cut during a period when every penny counts.Cllr Ken Moss

Jack Herer, I am not slavishly adhering to any party line or laying the blame at any party's door because much of what has happened was way before my time. I am not interested in debating what happened ten years ago and arguing whether things could have been done better, mistakes have been made by everyone for eternity. What I am interested in is the here and now and both County and District Councils are faced with cuts so massive that they can scarcely be imagined. That is the reality and it is up to the elected representatives to deal with that in the best way for everyone. Cutting taxes just before an election makes life even harder, not just for the people juggling the figures but for everyone in the County who now have £7m less in services thanks to a failed election tactic. In Hyndburn we have the same problem, massively reduced money and the same services to supply. If we proposed a tax cut at local level all we do is make our own lives more difficult, it doesn't solve the problem of how we provide those services, it is still there writ large the day after the election no matter who won. That is my major beef with a stupid tax cut during a period when every penny counts.

Score: 2

Cllr Ken Moss says...12:07pm Mon 13 Jan 14

If you think that being anywhere near the Council offices is a gravy train you are dead wrong too, the pay is generally lousy for the hours you put in and the phenomenal amount of aggro you get round the clock 7 days a week. The odd one or two have claimed every penny they can but since the expenses scandal people have started asking what they are getting for their money and it has whittled out the chaff. This can only be a good thing for the country as a whole and I welcome it but for all the perceived champagne socialism the reality is getting phone calls at 8am on Christmas Day asking how to get a new recycling bin or questioned in a local restaurant at 11pm on a Saturday night on why I still allow dog fouling to take place. I am all in favour of cutting wasteful spending and there has been a lot over the years by parties of all colours but laying blame and harking back to what we used to have doesn't help us deal with what we have now. If the government, whichever government, seriously can get us to a neutral position by 2018 then it will get a pat on the back from me because it is a seriously difficult job. I might not agree with exactly how it is being done but it is where we need to be as a country.

If you think that being anywhere near the Council offices is a gravy train you are dead wrong too, the pay is generally lousy for the hours you put in and the phenomenal amount of aggro you get round the clock 7 days a week. The odd one or two have claimed every penny they can but since the expenses scandal people have started asking what they are getting for their money and it has whittled out the chaff.
This can only be a good thing for the country as a whole and I welcome it but for all the perceived champagne socialism the reality is getting phone calls at 8am on Christmas Day asking how to get a new recycling bin or questioned in a local restaurant at 11pm on a Saturday night on why I still allow dog fouling to take place.
I am all in favour of cutting wasteful spending and there has been a lot over the years by parties of all colours but laying blame and harking back to what we used to have doesn't help us deal with what we have now.
If the government, whichever government, seriously can get us to a neutral position by 2018 then it will get a pat on the back from me because it is a seriously difficult job. I might not agree with exactly how it is being done but it is where we need to be as a country.Cllr Ken Moss

If you think that being anywhere near the Council offices is a gravy train you are dead wrong too, the pay is generally lousy for the hours you put in and the phenomenal amount of aggro you get round the clock 7 days a week. The odd one or two have claimed every penny they can but since the expenses scandal people have started asking what they are getting for their money and it has whittled out the chaff. This can only be a good thing for the country as a whole and I welcome it but for all the perceived champagne socialism the reality is getting phone calls at 8am on Christmas Day asking how to get a new recycling bin or questioned in a local restaurant at 11pm on a Saturday night on why I still allow dog fouling to take place. I am all in favour of cutting wasteful spending and there has been a lot over the years by parties of all colours but laying blame and harking back to what we used to have doesn't help us deal with what we have now. If the government, whichever government, seriously can get us to a neutral position by 2018 then it will get a pat on the back from me because it is a seriously difficult job. I might not agree with exactly how it is being done but it is where we need to be as a country.

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standardards Organisations's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a compaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here